Re: Enough DMARC whinging

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Mon, 05 May 2014 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7508E1A04AA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0cefcbhS5hHI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4D11A049F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id va2so6426337obc.11 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 May 2014 13:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=h2/+BOM+eYgIpVJbdW6PTbta2BuXCR7Y7KIAQGA+1X4=; b=X2sq65gmQRFQev9UtLt3ZiNoG6vCFkL3FqrCnzZad+kOCTS5sc5sNL0nUEsCAy0uye 6IWSaBoSaYnuGxVILXLMzE/5M6y6Wv9yMSyYhjFKZDqV3BWHI3u2Lxw9dQWQoci9dXA+ +xCEIzyhecRsiIoNRvQBadexFnuKH3+hVwHNI=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=h2/+BOM+eYgIpVJbdW6PTbta2BuXCR7Y7KIAQGA+1X4=; b=LwOaKcN367ay3kkWj7ZAeWmVLEhZ81XZrSxwuKkLRZmwmN7ZigVyOS3MK50ZdGjXJ1 j6RTgF9I2o7fqJQosDxzrwLsdaXOo0z3CK06H7b5NGoKsOax1ZyeEpESIju01JtzYseo pvdXLwfXPc7+GK8tHl6FMSrDrjuupJ3OlQYc+DECdNrutwpaIPlriYLQ1siSEq4jkYMq Pp2yXFe/ehQfd3b0Xl3UPHv6kK1PyVbIo88ycCmK9DIwi2ohP03C8JumQ1Hf1z9kg+N+ XcNIuBKvKOEKaxjgV7k2orRdYSpcTIH7TRXMTo0lRTkvwoH38DSs+amvxYMGTxkHPqA0 tIPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlzIJkw9ESNR3fn+pqLnqz0NHuBgEfsnYmDj+dYENPKD59W3+FSdiGlmuL233o4NwWHJ22T
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.49.135 with SMTP id u7mr4535525obn.73.1399321063637; Mon, 05 May 2014 13:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.60.100 with HTTP; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYPzfjPA6qBN=SXaJFvtYZcumRnZ5tCSNHbdw1r_hyG-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+Lwh0Sc2wtvjEAjOMi4emDzyF4JWmmzYr5QEFcmyoKtkTAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwikJhO5R6UqWx8qUswMptgTw_wF6E6_9Ok=SRYTBChYgA@mail.gmail.com> <536113B1.5070309@bbiw.net> <CAMm+LwiXoW3p5uCmML4kAWXnbrrAnSCK9x5U2qeHJdVgR2r_Gg@mail.gmail.com> <E3A7C677B18263C8DF6DD316@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <5362943D.2020907@bluepopcorn.net> <536295E5.3080502@dcrocker.net> <5362B4C6.10904@meetinghouse.net> <CAL0qLwb_UJrjViZwxrSC=y4y8geY8-N0QOHMeBski3dEuBqB6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYPzfjPA6qBN=SXaJFvtYZcumRnZ5tCSNHbdw1r_hyG-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 21:17:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzy=EFEiAR+hQt8WKE9YtpDhk7QgoLQXTKQZYzhWuW6+HQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Enough DMARC whinging
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b5d8c89ecf72804f8acd226"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5jJvXdK2KAFsSlYSovPh1Jm7ohM
Cc: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 20:17:48 -0000

On 5 May 2014 20:51, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> How?  I'm fairly certain it does neither.
>>
>
> Sorry, I missed that there were later replies.
>
> The SMTP state machine is not changed by DMARC any more than SPF or others
> changed it.  It doesn't add any new states, verbs, parameters, or anything
> else.  DMARC sits at least two "layers" above where SMTP operates.  As with
> any number of other filtering systems, it can influence SMTP's final DATA
> reply, but that's hardly unique or even unusual.
>
>
It aims to change the behaviour of Internet Mail as deployed.

Whether you want to claim that this is formally extending SMTP, per-se, or
not is really something of a moot point - there is certainly an
intentional, large, effect on the deployed protocol. Arguing whether this
fits the letter of some particular definition smacks of lawyering to my
mind.

Dave.